On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 Dan@Clemmensen.ShireNet.com (Dan Clemmensen) Wrote:
>If this variant of superstring theory is correct, then matter really
>is (9+1)-dimensional, not (3+)-dimensional, and is therefore has
>finite "thickness" in the other dimensions. By analogy, you can
>stack an infinite number of abstract 2-dimensional objects together
>in 3-space without generating any "thickness", but when you start
>stacking practical "2-D" pieces of paper, you build a real book with
>real thickness.
Yes, if we can't find something that is really 3 dimensional, or at least
8 dimensional, then we couldn't get arbitrarily close and would have to
settle for 10^-33 cm and forget about infinite computation. Another slight
problem is that I'm not exactly sure where I'm going to get an infinite amount
of matter, 3D or otherwise, to build all those processors, but I'm a big
picture man, I leave to others the job of working out the trifling details.
To those who don't like this thread and think it's pretty dumb all I can say
is, you were warned, look at the title.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBM/dfzn03wfSpid95AQFWpQTvfrsGK/K22tLFJfqEXHDpLidPg60p7PD6
ZI7j5T9PdCFhCGGb6XV+Aczie3ZMIs8eg5XiLLg/Yy0CR5XsLNGVgH9wsFRAeUAJ
iL3iXQCEFZuOTLVO/tUjFWeXYqt13BE/dXc3x9Y8/T+q5SvsyfNcCVzh+iuH/Agk
riPriM6c52/VuzkJahRSh5buYGpAF4LZVsnYZwmTdaQl2A+eh4I=
=BKW8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----